BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

210 results for “TDS”+ Section 58clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,460Mumbai1,357Bangalore673Chennai461Hyderabad346Ahmedabad314Kolkata311Cochin210Indore191Jaipur182Raipur172Chandigarh161Karnataka148Pune142Visakhapatnam80Lucknow70Cuttack64Jabalpur64Surat48Dehradun36Ranchi32Rajkot31Agra20Nagpur20Allahabad20Amritsar16Guwahati14Telangana13Patna12Varanasi8SC7Jodhpur4Calcutta4Panaji4Uttarakhand2Punjab & Haryana2Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 25070Limitation/Time-bar28Addition to Income26Section 4020Section 201(1)12TDS10Section 271C9Deduction9Disallowance8Section 234B

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 210/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80C

TDS because there was a bona fide estimate that after giving benefit under provision of Section 80C of the Act most of the employees were out of the tax bracket net. He also submitted that the contribution made towards Provident Fund is eligible for deduction under Section 80C of the Act because it has been established as per Section

Showing 1–20 of 210 · Page 1 of 11

...
7
Section 194A7
Section 487

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MALAPPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 208/COCH/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80C

TDS because there was a bona fide estimate that after giving benefit under provision of Section 80C of the Act most of the employees were out of the tax bracket net. He also submitted that the contribution made towards Provident Fund is eligible for deduction under Section 80C of the Act because it has been established as per Section

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 212/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80C

TDS because there was a bona fide estimate that after giving benefit under provision of Section 80C of the Act most of the employees were out of the tax bracket net. He also submitted that the contribution made towards Provident Fund is eligible for deduction under Section 80C of the Act because it has been established as per Section

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 209/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80C

TDS because there was a bona fide estimate that after giving benefit under provision of Section 80C of the Act most of the employees were out of the tax bracket net. He also submitted that the contribution made towards Provident Fund is eligible for deduction under Section 80C of the Act because it has been established as per Section

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 211/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80C

TDS because there was a bona fide estimate that after giving benefit under provision of Section 80C of the Act most of the employees were out of the tax bracket net. He also submitted that the contribution made towards Provident Fund is eligible for deduction under Section 80C of the Act because it has been established as per Section

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MALAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 207/COCH/2021[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80C

TDS because there was a bona fide estimate that after giving benefit under provision of Section 80C of the Act most of the employees were out of the tax bracket net. He also submitted that the contribution made towards Provident Fund is eligible for deduction under Section 80C of the Act because it has been established as per Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, KANNUR vs. KANNUR BUILDING MATERIALS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue ITA No

ITA 600/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavban, Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 Vs. Kannur Building Materials Co-Op. Society Ltd .......... Respondent No. C 1741, Pappinissery P.O., Kannur 670561 [Pan: Aaaak7151K]

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 40Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

58,390/- for which TDS provisions were applicable. 5.10 In ground no. 6, the appellant has raised the plea that the assessment order is barred by limitation of time u/s 153 in as much as the order and demand notice u/s 156 was served on the assessee only on 02-04-2016. 5.11 On perusal of the records

MR.THOMAS DANIEL,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 68/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.68/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

Section 194ASection 40Section 44A

TDS in the light of above provisions. The I.T.A. No.68 /Coch/2018 assessment year in question is 2007-08 and the amendment giving breathing space to payer of amounts is with effect from 01/04/2013. Therefore, the said benefit is not applicable to the assessee. Even otherwise, on factual situation, the very fact that these amounts were claimed as loan initially, till

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

58,356/- iii. Disallowance of pre-operative expenditure details of which were extracted by the AO vide para 9 of the draft assessment order. These pre-operative expenditure was incurred for the purpose of setting up of new plant at Chennai. In the books of account, the appellant company had capitalised the pre- operative expenditure. However, in the return

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 475/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

TDS with the Government. 27. A proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the Section, is required to be read into the Section to give the Section a reasonable interpretation and requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 134/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

TDS with the Government. 27. A proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the Section, is required to be read into the Section to give the Section a reasonable interpretation and requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 978/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

For Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)Section 40a

58(2). All payments in excess of Rs.2,500 at one time whether for goods or services obtained for cash or 6 P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan vs. Asst. CIT credit, which are deductible in computing the income, have to be made by crossed cheque or bank draft. Thus, the price of goods purchased for resale or use in manufacturing process

THE KAREEPPA PANCHAYATH SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.D,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 732/COCH/2023[AY-2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Anoopa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 2Section 22Section 250Section 40Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

58 company in Section 5(c) thereof which means any company which transacts the business of banking in India. “Banking” is 13 Kareeppa Panchayat Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. \ defined in Section 5(b) of the said Act to mean the accepting, for the purpose of lending or investment, of deposits of money from the public, repayable on demand

THE ALLEPPEY DIST CO- BANK LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2014-2015 are

ITA 388/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.KrishnanFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 139ASection 194ASection 194A(3)Section 197ASection 206ASection 40

TDS on the interest payment received from the assessee deductor by filing the respective form 15G or 15H with the deductor. D. The declaration under section 197A i.e. Form 15G or Form 15H shall not be valid unless the deductee furnishes PAN in the Form 15G or Form 15H respectively. Further, the deductor is required to deduct

THE ALLEPPEY DIST CO- BANK LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2014-2015 are

ITA 387/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.KrishnanFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 139ASection 194ASection 194A(3)Section 197ASection 206ASection 40

TDS on the interest payment received from the assessee deductor by filing the respective form 15G or 15H with the deductor. D. The declaration under section 197A i.e. Form 15G or Form 15H shall not be valid unless the deductee furnishes PAN in the Form 15G or Form 15H respectively. Further, the deductor is required to deduct

THE ALLEPPEY DIST CO- BANK LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2014-2015 are

ITA 389/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.KrishnanFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 139ASection 194ASection 194A(3)Section 197ASection 206ASection 40

TDS on the interest payment received from the assessee deductor by filing the respective form 15G or 15H with the deductor. D. The declaration under section 197A i.e. Form 15G or Form 15H shall not be valid unless the deductee furnishes PAN in the Form 15G or Form 15H respectively. Further, the deductor is required to deduct

THE ALLEPPEY DIST CO- BANK LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2014-2015 are

ITA 386/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.KrishnanFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 139ASection 194ASection 194A(3)Section 197ASection 206ASection 40

TDS on the interest payment received from the assessee deductor by filing the respective form 15G or 15H with the deductor. D. The declaration under section 197A i.e. Form 15G or Form 15H shall not be valid unless the deductee furnishes PAN in the Form 15G or Form 15H respectively. Further, the deductor is required to deduct

A & B ASSOCIATES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 643/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by directing the AO to -

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Sr. D/R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

58,310/- A sum of Rs. 87,873 was deducted as TDS. As the business was not profitable, and for some other major reasons, the relationship between the partners was substantially damaged and the partners had lost confidence between them. After some preliminary legal steps, they have decided to dissolve the firm and 4 A&B Associates accordingly, the firm

M/S.TRANS MARINE CORPORATION,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, WD-2(5) NON- CORPORATE, KOCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 520/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year:2012-13

Section 144Section 144oSection 145(3)

TDS was required to be made thereon. Therefore, the provision of section 194C will not be applicable in respect of reimbursement of expenses. 5.6 The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. In this case, the assessee filed the Profit and Loss account and Balance sheet

M/S.ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 489/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santhom Bose, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 156Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

section 145 of the I.T.Act cannot be subject matter of disallowance. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the assessee itself had disallowed a sum of Rs.62,29,211 out of the total provision amounting to Rs.1,74,48,219 u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act in the return of income filed by it. The DRP on its part again directed